The ongoing Conservative Civil War.

On top of the threats being dropped on GOP Party Leaders, we have this from Jonathan Chait. The establishment GOP is finally coming after the Tea-Bagger GOP. The problem is, is it too late?"

A couple months ago, I mused about the outbreak of tactical radicalism -- the belief that ideological extremism carries no political cost whatsoever -- among Republicans. Why, I asked, were Republicans standing aside and letting primary voters select nominees who had a much lower chance of winning? Where was the Republican establishment?

Now the establishment is taking a stand in Delaware. The establishment choice is Mike Castle, a moderate-ish member of the House who is running for Senate, where he would be a prohibitive favorite in an overwhelmingly Democratic state. Running against him is Tea Party favorite Christine O-Donnell. If she defeats Castle in the GOP primary, O'Donnell would turn a strong likelihood of a Senate pickup into a near-certain loss. And you're starting to see the Republican establishment take her on. The Washington Examiner, the Weekly Standard and the Wall Street Journal editorial page have lambasted O'Donnell, whose ideology closely mirrors their own. The Delaware GOP is going after O'Donnell hard.

But O'Donnell seems to be surging anyway. A new PPP poll has her ahead of Castle. Castle's image has turned sharply negative within the Republican base, and understandably so. In a party in which even the tiniest whisper of a hint of deviation is no longer acceptable -- Robert Bennett was swept out for having briefly considered a bipartisan health care reform that went nowhere -- Castle's votes for cap and trade, pro-choice stance and other acts of moderation are totally intolerable.

Now, the fact is that Castle is the only Republican who can win in a state like Delaware. But that argument is very hard to make to Republican voters in the current climate. They are intoxicated with their belief that they represent The People, that there is no political price for being too conservative. The party establishment has been stoking that intoxication for a long time. Now it's coming back to bite them.

Good choice using a still from the Empire Strikes Back in your article, Jonathan! Star Wars is always appreciated here at Fort McHenry.

Mitch comes through...for Democrats!

I think the Democrats are going to get the fight they want: Republicans fighting tooth and nail to defend Tax Cuts for the Rich.

Tea Partiers deliver death threats...on other Republicans!!

What?!?!?

The chairman of the Delaware Republican Party received a death threat last week over his support for Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del) over Tea Party challenger Christine O'Donnell in the state's upcoming Senate primary, a party official confirmed to the Huffington Post.

The threat, issued in the form of an email, told chairman Tom Ross that he deserves "a bullet in the head" for backing "political ass-kissing RINO's" [Republicans in name only].

"It is one thing to have your country screwed over by socialists, it is far worse to be backstabbed by people pretending to be your friends," the email read. "We will either rid the GOP of pieces of shit like you, or we will start a new 'Common Sense Conservative' party and render you all useless."

The threat was serious enough to compel Ross to leave his home, temporarily, and to spur an investigation from the Department of Justice said the official with the Delaware GOP (a DoJ official did not immediately return a request for comment). It also was sinister enough to alarm state party officials who are unaccustomed to not just threats of violence but even to heated political contests like the one unfolding in the state's Republican primary.

"It is just scary what is going on right now," the official said. "Tom is a loyal and dedicated Republican officer in Delaware... the position is unpaid and his job as party chairman is to defend and promote the candidates... It is disgusting, it is amazing and it has no place in our democracy."

Granted, normally Tom Ross is an enemy, but he's a political enemy. That's all. He's the opposition. At the end of the day, you want him beaten at the ballot box, and that's it.

Okay, maybe...MAYBE...you go Nyah-Nyah-Nyah, but even that's pushing things.

The guy quoted in the piece is absolutely right, threats like this have no place in our Democracy. If you have half a brain cell in your head I shouldn't have to state the obvious but we're dealing with Teabaggers here.

I hope the Justice Department finds this guy (or gal) and puts them away for a long stretch in the clink. I hope Tom Ross and his family are okay, and are able to get home soon.

Did someone in Texas just save a bunch of lives with his skateboard??!?

Well, never mind the fact that Washington beat Dallas 13-7 last night. (I don't care how ugly it was, a win is a win; and a win against the Cowboys is extra sweet!)

But, a Texas Skateboarder in Amarillo just stood up for America in a way that...frankly brings a tear to my eye.

I know, a Texan!

In Amarillo, Texas, David Grisham, director of Repent Amarillo, “which aims to deter promiscuity, homosexuality and non-Christian worship practices through confrontation and prayer,” planned to burn the Islamic holy text at a public gathering. But before he could set the book ablaze, a 23 year-old skateboarder named Jacob Isom swooped in and grabbed it:

A planned Quran burning Saturday in Amarillo was thwarted by a 23-year-old carrying a skateboard and wearing a T-shirt with “I’m in Repent Amarillo No Joke” scrawled by hand on the back.

Jacob Isom, 23, grabbed David Grisham’s Quran when he became distracted while arguing with several residents at Sam Houston Park about the merits of burning the Islamic holy book. “You’re just trying to start Holy Wars,” Isom said of Grisham after he gave the book to a religious leader from the Islamic Center of Amarillo.

A TEXAN!!!!

Good for him. He's one of my nominees for American of the Year.

The Fireside chat for September 11, 2010 (VIDEO)

The President marks the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks as a National Day of Service and Remembrance to honor those who lost their lives.

The President's Press Conference of September 10, 2010 (VIDEO)

I have to say, it was a damn good Press Conference.

No, the President did fine. It was the Press that impressed me. They asked serious, tough, direct, straightforward questions about (gasp) revelant National issues.

Slightly duller Austan Goolsebee (VIDEO)

This was from Wednesday, fresh off the Cleveland speech. Austan answering questions on a live chat. Not as funny as he usually is, especially on the "Socialist" question they got, but still...

Austan Goolsbee: "Great Depression-Land. Worst Amusement Park ever"

I know. I've put some of this stuff up before, but now that Austan Goolsebee is the head of the Council of Economic Advisers, I thought it was time for a refresher in the man's Daily Show appearances:

Part 1 from his appearance on August 11, 2009:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Austan Goolsbee Extended Interview Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Part 2 from his appearance on August 11, 2009:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Austan Goolsbee Extended Interview Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

And from his appearance six months later on February 1, 2010:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Austan Goolsbee
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

"We don't differentiate between them and us. It's just us." (VIDEO)

The full video for the Press Conference will still be posted later today, but I wanted to highlight and underline the same piece of footage that TPM is celebrating right now, and rightfully so. The President just put it as plainly as it can be put: there is no them and us, there's just us:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

From the TPM Story:

President Obama concluded his press conference today with a statement on the importance of protecting the rights of American Muslims. "We don't differentiate between them and us," he said. "It's just us. And that is a principle that I think is going to be very important for us to sustain."

Obama was asked about the controversial Park51 Islamic center, and said: "I think I've been pretty clear on my position here. And that is: This country stands for the proposition that all men and women are created equal, that they have certain inalienable rights, and one of those inalienable rights is to practice their religion freely."

"What that means," he continued, "is that if you could build a church on a site, you could build a synagogue on a site, if you could build a Hindu temple on a site, then you should be able to build a mosque on the site."

"We've got millions of Muslim Americans, our fellow citizens in this country," Obama said. "They're going to school with our kids. They're our neighbors. They're our friends. They're our coworkers. And when we start acting as if their religion is somehow offensive, what are we saying to them?"

He continued that there are also Muslims fighting in Afghanistan: "They're out there putting their lives on the line for us, and we've got to make sure that we are crystal clear for our sakes and their sakes -- they are Americans, and we honor their service."

Our Jarheads come through...

Looks like the U.S. Marines took on a ship full of Somali Pirates, and took 'em down without firing a shot:

U.S. Marine commandos stormed a pirate-held cargo ship off the Somalia coast Thursday, reclaiming control and taking nine prisoners without firing a shot in the first such boarding raid by the international anti-piracy flotilla, U.S. Navy officials said.

The mission - using small craft to reach the deck of German-owned vessel as the crew huddled in a safe room below - ranks among the most dramatic high seas confrontations with pirates by the task force created to protect shipping lanes off lawless Somalia.

The crew managed to kill the engines before taking refuge in an panic room-style chamber, leaving the ship adrift and the pirates so frustrated they started damaging equipment after hijacking the vessel Wednesday, Navy officials and the ship's operator say.

Lt. John Fage, a spokesman at the U.S. Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain, described the pre-dawn raid as an "air and sea" assault that included Cobra attack helicopters for surveillance and coordination.

Marine Corps officers involved in the raid told reporters in a conference call that the attack involved "overwhelming force" and the element of surprise. Marines were able to separate the pirates and confront them singly or in small groups, while helicopters bore down.

Wow. Good freakin' job, guys.

How come this didn't make the News last night??

Oh, that's right. The news has been cancelled.

News Alert: Press Conference at 11:00am Eastern.

The President's holding a Press Conference at 11:00am Eastern, 8am Pacific. I'll post the video when I get it.

It's beginning to look a lot like Elizabeth Warren...

After all the back and forth on Elizabeth Warren the last few weeks, it's starting to look like (emphasize: look like) we're heading for some kind of resolution on the matter.

Basically, I think the President is about to make a pick to head the Consumer Protection Agency. When anything will be announced, I don't know.

First in actual news, White House funny-man Austan Goolsbee has been tapped as the head of the Council of Economic Advisers. Which is good. Despite the fact that Goolsbee is a University of Chicago grad, it doesn't seem that the worst elements of that school have completely rubbed off on him.

And in speculative news, it seems that Elizabeth Warren met with President. Of course since I, or Huffington Post for that matter, were not directly privy to the nature of the meeting, anything could have happened, and Lord knows HuffPo isn't tracking any other candidate (and they're out there).

It had been speculated that since there's a lack of women in Obama's Economic Team, if he picked Goolsbee, he'd need to pick a woman at a flashy position to balance things out.

Well, he's picked Goolsbee.

...and Elizabeth Warren ain't going back to her day job at Harvard.

...and she's meeting with the President.

You do the math.

A Listening Problem...

Erza Klein:

Matt Bai blames the Democrats' plight in part on a rhetorical failure of the president. The economic crisis, Bai says, was an opportunity to deliver "one of his trademark orations to an anxious public...explaining then that the country had to respond in two related but distinct ways — first by spending hundreds of billions of dollars in the short term to avoid a depression, and then by making a series of large-scale investments over time that would modernize the foundation of the economy."

Jon Chait, sensibly enough, quotes four major speeches where President Obama said exactly those things. And you could of course quote others. The fact that the economic crisis required both short- and long-term measures has been among their major themes since the beginning. They even put it in the name of the stimulus bill: It was called the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act." It's just that no one listened.

To read pundits talking about presidential speeches, you'd think there was a statute requiring every American to watch every presidential address and then score a 75 percent or higher on a quiz testing their listening skills. In fact, pretty much no one watches presidential speeches. Obama's 2010 State of the Union got 48 million viewers. His Iraq speech last week grabbed about 29 million of the country. Most of the others speeches get much smaller shares. No one, as far as I can tell, pays attention to the weekly radio address, or the average midday remarks.

And that's fine. It's good that we're not a dictatorship where everyone feels the need to memorize every word the leader utters. But it puts the lie to the idea that the president can simply orate a narrative directly into the American psyche. A small minority -- many of them political junkies who already know what they think -- will occasionally tune in to a particularly momentous address, and they may or may not stay for the whole thing, and they may or may not actually pay attention while they're watching. Somewhat more people will then get a partial summary through news coverage the next day. A week later, most people won't have heard the speech, and the few who did see or read the whole thing will largely have forgotten it. This is, in part, why presidents are worse at persuasion than people think: They do not have the rapt audience that so many assume.

And that doesn't just go for the average voters. In theory, political journalists are paid to pay attention to what the president says. In reality, they ignore most of it. This tends to frustrate White House staff, who put a lot of work into even minor statements like the weekly address only to see them ignored by writers who'd prefer if the same information were whispered into their ears. From the journalist's perspective, of course, this makes some sense: You're trying to find out things other people don't know, and in theory, everyone knows things that are in the speeches. But in reality, since no one is paying attention to the speeches, there's a lot in there that never penetrates into either the public consciousness or the media's thinking, and all White Houses are routinely criticized for not making arguments that they make all the time.

"The budget deficit and the national debt are a huge national crisis, which threaten our future and our very way of life"

Of course with the following caveats, by Steven Benen:

As I now understand it, the budget deficit and the national debt are a huge national crisis, which threaten our future and our very way of life, if the proposal on the table is:

• Aid to the unemployed
• American infrastructure
• Jobs for teachers, firefighters, and police officers
• Retirement security
• Investment in a new U.S. energy policy
• Access to affordable health care for America's families
• Quality public schools and student loans
• Transportation, public works, research and development, childcare, and food stamps

On the other hand, the budget deficit and the national debt are utterly meaningless, and shouldn't even be considered, if the proposal on the table is:

• Tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires
• War
• Infrastructure in Iraq
• an expanded government role in health care through Medicare Part D
• an expanded government role in education through No Child Left Behind

What do you say, Republicans and Tea Partiers? Do I have this about right?

Vice-President Biden's Appearance on Colbert Nation!

He even got the Vice-President to hand out hot-dogs (not in this clip):

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Joe Biden
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes 2010 Election Fox News

Really, Jon?

I wasn't thrilled with this interview:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Tim Kaine
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

It would have been one thing for Jon to ask hard questions (he did), it's another to bring the man on and ask "Why bother?"

Why We Vote...

Pasadena United Democrats reminds us why its important to vote, and why its important to stay involved, no matter how hard the road ahead seems.

Daily Show and Colbert Nation alert...

Tonight, Tim Kaine, head of the DNC will be on with Jon Stewart, and Vice President Joe Biden will be on with Colbert.

The video will be up tomorrow.

True to her word, Murkowski's not a quitter after all...

Following up on what I posted yesterday, we now have this from the Huffington Post:

Sen. Lisa Murkowski -- who shocked the political establishment when she was defeated by Tea Party-backed candidate Joe Miler in Alaska's GOP Senate primary last month -- is likely to run as a write-in candidate to keep her reelection hopes alive, Fox News reports.

According to the network, sources familiar with the matter say Murkowski is expected to announce how she plans to conduct her campaign in coming days. If the Republican incumbent follows through in mounting an independent campaign, she would face-off against Miller once again, as well as Democratic candidate Scott McAdams to keep her seat.

A senior Republican leadership aide told Fox that should a three-way general election match-up arise, "The entire Republican leadership has endorsed and would continue to support Joe Miller."

On the heels of Murkowski's loss to Miller, Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, signaled that he would firmly support the unlikely Senate nominee in Alaska's general election race.

Before I start jumping up and down and congratulating the second Democratic Senator from Alaska, I really want to see what the money does. If Murkowski can turn this into a mountain of fundraising from her usual (read: Oil) donors, Miller's done, cooked like Christmas Dinner.

Of course, if she turns it into a super-mountain, if the donors give to her like nothing's changed, she might even be able to win this thing.

I hope this Lieberman strategy does not turn into a trend. Senators, you are elected to these seats, you are not entitled to them.

On the one hand, the people sent her a message (which was get out). On the other, it's not like she's buying (outright at least) the seat. People are still voting for her. If they want her back in office that back, more power to 'em.

The President's Economics Speech from Cleveland, Ohio (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

From the prepared remarks:

These values are not Democratic or Republican. They are not conservative or liberal values. They are American values. As Democrats, we take pride in what our party has accomplished over the last century: Social Security and the minimum wage; the GI Bill and Medicare; civil rights and worker’s rights and women’s rights. But we also recognize that throughout our history, there has been a noble Republican vision as well, of what this country can be. It was the vision of Abraham Lincoln, who set up the first land grant colleges and launched the transcontinental railroad; the vision of Teddy Roosevelt, who used the power of government to break up monopolies; the vision of Dwight Eisenhower, who helped build the Interstate Highway System. And, yes, the vision of Ronald Reagan, who despite his aversion to government, was willing to help save Social Security for future generations -- working with Democrats.

These were serious leaders for serious times. They were great politicians, but they didn’t spend all their time playing games or scoring points. They didn’t always prey on people’s fears and anxieties. They made mistakes, but they did what they thought was in the best interests of their country and its people.

And that’s what the American people expect of us today -– Democrats, independents, and Republicans. That’s the debate they deserve. That’s the leadership we owe them.

So what happened to that ten point GOP lead?

Ummmmm....

Last week, Gallup's generic-ballot tracking poll showed Republicans leading Democrats by 10, 51% to 41%. It was billed as the GOP's biggest Gallup lead in the history of humanity, and the results generated massive media attention, including a stand-alone Washington Post piece on page A2. It was iron-clad evidence, we were told, of impending Democratic doom.

I strongly recommended caution -- Gallup's generic-ballot tracking poll has been erratic and unreliable. Both parties had built up big leads in recent months, only to see them quickly disappear, for no apparent reason. I made the case that inconsistent polls with bizarre swings are necessarily suspect, but the media had its narrative -- the GOP tsunami is coming -- and couldn't be bothered to consider whether the Gallup poll had merit.

Wouldn't you know it, a week later, that massive, unprecedented, world-changing lead Republicans enjoyed is gone. The new Gallup numbers show the GOP losing five points and Dems gaining five points, leaving the parties tied at 46%. Is there any coherent rationale to explain a 10-point swing in Dems' favor over the last week? Of course not.

Just to be perfectly clear, I don't consider this evidence of a surge in Democratic support, and Dems who rejoice at this poll are making the same mistake Republicans and reporters made last week. The point is Gallup's generic-ballot tracking poll just isn't telling us anything useful, no matter which party likes the results in any given week.

"Fighting for tax breaks for the wealthy is just part of their DNA..."

From Steven Benen:

The White House plan will be identical to the one he promised to pursue during the campaign -- rates for households making less than $250,000 a year (98% of the country) would stay at the lower rate, while the top 2% would go back to the Clinton-era rates.

I don't doubt that Republicans will be apoplectic -- fighting for tax breaks for the wealthy is just part of their DNA -- but they should keep a few things in mind. The first is that the Republican approach isn't exactly popular -- the latest Newsweek poll found only 38% of the country wants to extend all of the Bush-era tax rates. A recent CBS News poll put the figure even lower, at 36%.

Second, remember that Obama is basically just following the plan as set by Republicans themselves. When Bush and the congressional GOP passed these cuts, Republicans set them to expire at the end of 2010. The president will go along with keeping the lower rates on the middle class, but in light of deficit concerns, can't justify the lower rates for the rich.

Third, if Republicans were serious about their own fiscal priorities, they'd try to find a way to pay for the $680 billion cost of keeping these breaks for the wealthy. So far, they've refused to even try.

Fourth, the number one talking point today will be that this tax policy will hurt small businesses. It's not true.

As for the bigger picture, I'm glad to see a more assertive president stepping up on this. Obama's prepared to let Republicans fight for the wealthy with tax cuts the country can't afford, while he makes his case for the middle class.

It's good policy and good politics.

E.J. Dionne likes what he's hearing out of Cleveland and Milwaukee

From the Washington Post:

Until Obama's Labor Day speech in Milwaukee and his statement of principles Wednesday near Cleveland, it was not clear how much heart he had in the fight or whether he would ever offer a comprehensive argument for the advantage of his party's approach.

In the absence of a coherent case, Republicans were winning by default on a wave of protest votes. Without this new effort at self-definition, Obama was a blur: a socialist to conservatives, a sellout to some progressives, and a disappointment to younger Americans who wondered what happened to the ebullient, hopeful guy they voted for.

That's why the Milwaukee-Cleveland one-two punch mattered. The first speech showed Obama could fight and enjoy himself in the process. The second speech spelled out why he has chosen to do battle.

The news headline was Obama's decision to draw the line on George W. Bush's tax cuts. He would continue the most economically stimulative cuts for families earning less than $250,000 a year but say no to extending the rest of the tax cuts that, as Obama noted, "would have us borrow $700 billion over the next 10 years to give a tax cut of about $100,000 to folks who are already millionaires." What do Democrats stand for if they are not willing to take on this cause?

And I almost forgot:

Yes, Republicans had better start defining themselves. If they don't, Obama, who labeled them the party of "stagnant growth, eroding competitiveness and a shrinking middle class," is happy to do it for them. That's what changed in Milwaukee and Cleveland.

Individual Democrats who deserve to lose: Part 2

Part 1 was Harry Reid, just for this.

I used to like Michael Bennett of Colorado, but...

...apparently, he'll only support the President's Stimulus proposals if they involve no new spending.

He'll only support Stimulus spending...if it doesn't spend any money???

This is why I don't give money to the DSCC.

Cleveland got fresh material from the President.

The President gave a barn-burner of a speech today in Cleveland. I'll put the Video up as soon as I can get it. This new speech was a lot more fun (for me anyway) than the one he gave at Laborfest, which I liked. This one I loved. While it covered some of the same ground as Laborfest, it also painted a picture of America, and what it means to be a Democrat:

I have a different vision for the future. I've never believed that government has all the answers to our problems. I've never believed that government's role is to create jobs or prosperity. I believe it's the drive and ingenuity of our entrepreneurs, the skill and dedication of our workers, that has made us the wealthiest nation on Earth. I believe it's the private sector that must be the main engine of our recovery.

I believe government should be lean, it should be efficient, and it should leave people free to make the choices they think are best for themselves and their families, so long as those choices don't hurt others.

But in the words of the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, I also believe that government should do for the people what they cannot do better for themselves.

That means making long-term investments in this country's future that individuals and corporations cannot make on their own: investments in education and clean energy; in basic research, technology, and infrastructure

That means making sure corporations live up to their responsibilities to treat consumers fairly and play by the same rules as everyone else; to look out for their workers and create jobs here at home.

And that means providing a hand up for middle-class families - so that if they work hard and meet their responsibilities, they can afford to raise their children, send them to college, see a doctor when they get sick, and retire with dignity and respect.

That's what we Democrats believe in - a vibrant free market, but one that works for everybody. That's our vision for a stronger economy and a growing middle-class. And that's the difference between what we and the Republicans in Congress are offering the American people right now.

And of course, there was the big dividing line on Taxes:

I'll give you one final example of the differences between us and the Republicans, and that's on the issue of tax cuts. Under the tax plan passed by the last administration, taxes are scheduled to go up substantially next year. Now, I believe we ought to make the tax cuts for the middle class permanent. These families are the ones who saw their wages and incomes flatline over the last decade - and they deserve a break. And because they are more likely to spend on basic necessities, this will strengthen the economy as a whole.

But the Republican leader of the House doesn't want to stop there. Make no mistake: he and his party believe we should also give a permanent tax cut to the wealthiest two percent of Americans. With all the other budgetary pressures we have - with all the Republicans' talk about wanting to shrink the deficit - they would have us borrow $700 billion over the next ten years to give a tax cut of about $100,000 to folks who are already millionaires. These are among the only folks who saw their incomes rise when Republicans were in charge. And these are folks who are less likely to spend the money, which is why economists don't think tax breaks for the wealthy would do much to boost the economy.

So let me be clear to Mr. Boehner and everyone else: we should not hold middle class tax cuts hostage any longer. We are ready, this week, to give tax cuts to every American making $250,000 or less. For any income over this amount, the tax rates would go back to what they were under President Clinton. This isn't to punish folks who are better off - it's because we can't afford the $700 billion price tag. And for those who claim that this is bad for growth and bad for small businesses, let me remind you that with those tax rates in place, this country created 22 million jobs, raised incomes, and had the largest surplus in history.

Like I said, more to come. From this site, and from the President.

Game...on.

"Still in the game??"

If I were Republican nominee Joe Miller of Alaska (and I thank God everyday that I'm not), I'd be quoting Scooby-Doo right now. "Ruh-R'oh!":

A week after conceding the GOP primary, U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski says she's not a quitter and is "still in this game."

Murkowski told The Associated Press on Tuesday that she's been inundated with calls and e-mails from supporters, asking her not to leave the race. She says she's been humbled and is listening — and weighing her options.

She said that if this was "all about Lisa, certainly the easy thing for me to do would be to figure out what my next opportunity would be with my family and just settle in to a nice job."

"But what I'm looking at is my state and the future of my state for my kids. So, I have not made that determination that I'm going to give up. I'm not a quitter, never have been. And I'm still in this game," Murkowski said.

It's real simple. If she does run, I don't know if she wins, but I guarantee you that Joe Miller does not.

Are you freaking kidding me?!?!?

This from the Progressive Change Campaign Committee:

Sign the pledge sending this message to Rahm Emanuel:

"I will not support Rahm Emanuel in any future election for Congress, Mayor of Chicago, Governor, or other office. He sold us out on the public option and is a weak Democrat who caves instead of fighting conservatives and corporate power. We won't forget the choices you've made, Rahm."

It's why I can't stand the PCCC and why Liberals keep losing.

Does the PCCC really expect me to believe that a Republican Mayor of Chicago is preferable to Rahmbo?

Political life is simple.

In the Primaries, you fall in love. PCCC can nominate who they want, and who they love.  I believe in primary challenges (except for President -- they never end well).  If they knock off Rahmbo in this stage.  Fine.  More power to 'em.

In the General, you fall in line. Vote for the Democrat, it beats the alternative!  Even if that means voting for Rahmbo.

"Tom Toles is worth a thousand words"

Bondad: "Potential for Double-Dip Recession Seems Small"

The Bondad posted a nice piece at the New York Times about why a double-dip Recession is likely not going to happen:

Over the last few months there has been an increase in the concern and discussion over a possible double-dip recession, particularly after unemployment reports over the summer showed that the nation was shedding tens of thousands of jobs. However, a key element lacking in the talk of double-dip recessions is what actually caused past recessions – that is, what are the primary reasons an economy slows to the point where its growth contracts for at least two quarters – followed by an analysis of whether those conditions exist in the current economic environment. And judging from a variety of indicators, the potential for a double-dip recession seem small.

In short (and in plain english):

Interest Rates still remain at record lows. Upticks in Interest Rates are usually precursors to Recessions.

Our friends the Banks are still relatively healthy, making money and not writing off as many losses as they once were. There are still a couple-hundred problem Banks, but Bondad thinks the overall trend is heading the right direction.

Commodities, particularly Oil prices, haven't spiked. I'm sure you've noticed that Gas is not cheap like it once was, but we don't seem to be experiencing the large-scale price increases like we did under Dubya. The Price of Oil per barrell is down from the $100 buck it once was at, and seems to be holding steady. Plus, dare I say it, are we getting used to the gouging we're taking at the pump?

Finally, there doesn't seem to be a bubble on the horizon at risk of bursting. We're still feeling the overwhelmingly negative effects of the Housing bubble, but there doesn't seem to be another on the horizon for us to worry about.

"The practical alternative on the table is ... what exactly?"

Andrew Sullivan, back from Vacation. And thank you Lord!

Yesterday's speech by the president, if you missed it, was a barn-stormer. Yes, it's the same old, same old pattern: he allows the opposition not just to vent and criticize (as they should) but to control the discourse for months, to drown out every other sound, to vent and crow and vilify and intimidate the cable news weenies into quivering puppies in need of crate-training. And then he comes back with a speech like that one.

I can't for the life of me see how the Democrats retain the House under these economic conditions, but that cannot and does not mean that what Obama has done in his first year and a half is a failure. On the contrary. On almost all the substantive stuff, he has in my view done the right and responsible and sane thing within the almost impossible constraints he was presented with. And given the legacy he inherited, what he has done is simply not enough to perform an economic or political or cultural miracle. That's the brutal truth and we have to face it. And if Americans thought they were voting for a savior, rather than a pragmatic president, they were deluding themselves.

When the economy imploded in the fall of 2008, there was simply precious little room for fiscal maneuver after the largely Republican-led spending and borrowing spree of the previous decade. The stimulus prevented the world falling into an economic abyss - just - but it was never going to get us out of the ditch we're in. Don Peck's brilliant cover-story is worth re-reading again on that score. And it was good to hear the president state this yesterday:

Eight million Americans lost their jobs in this recession. And even though we’ve had eight straight months of private sector job growth, the new jobs haven’t been coming fast enough. Now, here’s the honest truth, the plain truth. There’s no silver bullet. There’s no quick fix to these problems. I knew when I was running for office, and I certainly knew by the time I was sworn in, I knew it would take time to reverse the damage of a decade worth of policies that saw too few people being able to climb into the middle class, too many people falling behind. We all knew this. We all knew that it would take more time than any of us want to dig ourselves out of this hole created by this economic crisis.

The other brutal truth is that the opposition has nothing substantive to offer to remedy this. If all they've got is keeping the Bush tax cuts for those earning over $250,000 a year, they really have got nothing. What they do have is cultural symbolism and the exhausted right-left tropes that were trotted out at the mercifully vacuous parade of God and Country on the Mall with Beck and Palin. Maybe in power, by some miracle, the Tea Party Republicans will actually propose the long-term massive cuts in entitlements they claim to believe in. But I don't believe it for a second. I don't believe they are in any way serious about spending restraint and are only serious about their bewilderment at the real America where racial, religious and cultural diversity is a fact, where illegal immigration has been plummeting, where gay marriage is winning, where legal abortion will never go away, and where the new empire the last administration embarked upon has bankrupted us for a generation at least.

And this, in the end, must be what our politics is about: substantive policy responses to profound crises inherited from the past. Obama's call for transportation infrastructure investment is one tiny but real response and no panacea but it's paid for and it's something. His persistent attempt to get a real two-state solution in Israel-Palestine is unlikely to succeed given the forces arrayed against it in Washington and Tehran but it is necessary if we are to win this long war against Jihadism. His endurance in Afghanistan is, in my view, a tragic mistake, but anyone who claims that withdrawal would not have appalling moral consequences and great strategic risks is lying to you. His diplomatic and economic isolation of Iran's coup regime may also fail to prevent the Revolutionary Guards getting a nuclear capacity, but the alternative - a military strike - would initiate a new round of global religious warfare of terrifying gravity, where the Islamists would have the moral high-ground of being attacked first. His success in bringing a modicum of healthcare security to the working poor is also a work in progress but again, the practical alternative on the table is ... what exactly?

In the end, these difficult practical decisions will count because they have to count. And Obama's persistent refusal to take the red-blue bait still pushed by Fox News like a cheap bump of ideological meth is to his credit. It is emphatically not about his failure to "take them on". He is taking them on - but on his terms, not theirs'.

The President's Speech at Laborfest in Milwaukee (VIDEO)

The Fireside chat for September 4, 2010 (VIDEO)

The President talks about his fight to make America work for the middle class and make sure hard work is rewarded -- rather than greed and recklessness.



Now, it's campaign season!

Ezra v. Brooks

I'm looking at the last couple days on this blog, and it seems a majority of it involves me calling someone out, or me celebrating someone else calling someone out.

Why break a trend?

Here's Erza Klein calling out David Brooks of the New York Times:

David Brooks has a column today offering a counterfactual scenario in which Obama entered office, passed a massive payroll tax cut instead of the stimulus bill, focused his rhetoric on long-term growth rather than short-term recovery, cut spending, and did a super-popular energy bill rather than the mildly unpopular health-care bill. The idea, of course, is that him and the Democrats would be in better political shape than they currently are.

Like any counterfactual, you could poke holes in this. But instead, let's grant it. Obama entered office in January of 2009, had a long conversation with Future Brooks, and adopted this plan. As Brooks doesn't mention cap-and-trade or a price on carbon, I'll assume this is an energy investment bill rather than a carbon-pricing bill. As Brooks doesn't argue that his plan would've reduced the unemployment rate relative to its current level (and as that would be a very difficult case to make), I'll assume the economy looks pretty much as it looks now.

Maybe, in that world, Brooks is right. Maybe Democrats would be facing a loss of 25 or 30 seats rather than 45 or 50. I could think of reasons that that's not true, but let's say, for the moment, that it is.

What Brooks seems to be offering is a trade: Do less stuff, hold more seats. Now, Brooks doesn't think the health-care bill was a good bill, but Obama does, and most Democrats do. I'm not really sure what Brooks thinks of the stimulus plan's long-term infrastructure investments, but Obama and his team thought they were extremely important to the economy's long-term growth prospects. A universal health-care bill and hundreds of billions in much-needed, long-term investments in exchange for 15 or 20 House seats? Well, what are supermajorities for, if not making that precise trade?

You could say, I guess, that Obama and his team could've gotten more done by doing less in years one and two and then holding Democratic seats so they could continue passing legislation in years three and four. But I'd look at that a bit differently: They spent years one and two working on the issue areas of interest to massive Democratic majorities, like health-care reform and infrastructure investment, and they'll spend years three and four working on things that are of more interest to divided government, like deficit reduction. That is to say, they got everything they could out of the Democratic supermajority, and now they'll actually be able to pivot to the center more easily, as Democrats won't be yelling at Obama to fulfill his campaign promises and do health-care reform.

The odd man out in all this is energy reform, but I'm of the perhaps-pessimistic opinion that a serious cap-and-trade bill never really had a chance. Either way, I'm much more inclined toward critiques of Obama that focus on what more he could have done over the past two years. Saying he could have done less and then he would've been criticized less may or may not be true, but I'm much more worried about failing the uninsured and failing the climate than about failing Democratic candidates running in the 2010 midterms.

Rachel Maddow: When Republicans have no shame (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I (paraphrase) again. Spoiled Brats!

Adam Serwer doesn't understand Eugene Robinson's column.

Here we go again. Liberals are just as capable of misleading their readers as Conservatives are.

The latest example is Adam Serwer's piece, as he subs for Greg Sargent (on Vacation), ripping on Eugene Robinson's column, which I loved:

It's bad form to call the American people "spoiled" because generally that's what pundits do when their side is losing. This column is no exception: Robinson laments the fact that "incredibly, according to Gallup, registered voters say they intend to vote for Republicans over Democrats by an astounding 10-point margin."

That's not what Eugene's point was, and if Mr. Serwer had bothered to read the article past the headline, he would have come across this paragraph:

The nation demands the impossible: quick, painless solutions to long-term, structural problems. While they're running for office, politicians of both parties encourage this kind of magical thinking. When they get into office, they're forced to try to explain that things aren't quite so simple -- that restructuring our economy, renewing the nation's increasingly rickety infrastructure, reforming an unsustainable system of entitlements, redefining America's position in the world and all the other massive challenges that face the country are going to require years of effort. But the American people don't want to hear any of this. They want somebody to make it all better. Now.

Again, Americans are spoiled brats, but not because they're complaining about the state of the economy, it's because they have an unrealistic expectation of how fast things will turn around, and little desire to suffer any pain in the process.

Yes, that makes one, by definition, a spoiled brat.

Read...the damn...column, Mr. Serwer.

I can't wait until Greg comes back from vacation.

Maybe the American People are smarter than I thought.

Maybe I should apologize to my fellow citizens, because according to a USA Today/Gallup Poll:

The 71% saying Bush should get blamed was a modest decline from the 80% who felt that way about a year ago, in July 2009. [...]

In the July 2009 poll, a third, 32%, said [Obama] should shoulder a great deal or moderate amount of the blame. That percentage has risen — no surprise, given that he’s been in office for 20 months. Now almost half, 48%, do. But 51% say he’s dealing with problems he inherited, not created, saying he deserves not much or none of the responsibility for economic problems that include high unemployment and a faltering housing market.

There was, predictably, a yawning partisan divide on the question. Republicans by 4-1, 44%-10%, were more likely to give Obama a great deal of the blame than Bush. Democrats by more than 20-1 targeted Bush: They said the former president bore a great deal of the blame; just 3% said that of the current one.

More on ThinkProgress.

The American people want their snake oil, dangit!

Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post puts the blame for our current mess where it belongs...on the American People.

In the punditry business, it's considered bad form to question the essential wisdom of the American people. But at this point, it's impossible to ignore the obvious: The American people are acting like a bunch of spoiled brats.

This is not, I repeat not, a partisan argument. My own political leanings are well-known, but the refusal of Americans to look seriously at the nation's situation -- and its prospects -- is an equal-opportunity scourge. Republicans got the back of the electorate's hand in 2006 and 2008; Democrats will feel the sting this November. By 2012, it will probably be the GOP's turn to get slapped around again.

The nation demands the impossible: quick, painless solutions to long-term, structural problems. While they're running for office, politicians of both parties encourage this kind of magical thinking. When they get into office, they're forced to try to explain that things aren't quite so simple -- that restructuring our economy, renewing the nation's increasingly rickety infrastructure, reforming an unsustainable system of entitlements, redefining America's position in the world and all the other massive challenges that face the country are going to require years of effort. But the American people don't want to hear any of this. They want somebody to make it all better. Now.

President Obama can point to any number of occasions on which he has told Americans that getting our nation back on track is a long-range project. But his campaign stump speech ended with the exhortation, "Let's go change the world" -- not, "Let's go change the world slowly and incrementally, waiting years before we see the fruits of our labor."

And one thing he really hasn't done is frame the hard work that lies ahead as a national crusade that will require a degree of sacrifice from every one of us. It's obvious, for example, that the solution to our economic woes is not just to reinflate the housing bubble. New foundations have to be laid for a 21st-century economy, starting with weaning the nation off of its dependence on fossil fuels, which means there will have to be an increase in the price of oil. I don't want to pay more to fill my gas tank, but I know that it would be good for the nation if I did.

The richest Americans need to pay higher taxes -- not because they're bad people who deserve to be punished but because they earn a much bigger share of the nation's income and hold a bigger share of its overall wealth. If they don't pay more, there won't be enough revenue to maintain, much less improve, the kind of infrastructure that fosters economic growth. Think of what the interstate highway system has meant to this country. Now imagine trying to build it today.

Fixing Social Security for future generations, working steadily to improve the schools, charting a reasonable path on immigration -- none of this is what the American people want to hear. They're in the market for quick and easy solutions that won't hurt a bit. It's easy to blame politicians for selling a bunch of snake oil. But the truth is that all they're doing is offering what the public wants to buy.

Yes on the explosion, but...

...there isn't any mile long oil slick after all.  Sorry.

The Coast Guard initially reported that an oil sheen a mile long and 100 feet wide had begun to spread from the site of the blast, about 200 miles west of the source of BP's massive spill. But hours later, Coast Guard Cmdr. Cheri Ben-Iesau said crews were unable to find any spill.

Betcha Keith doesn't even cover this tonight.

Yglesias: "There’s no real upside in lying to the choir..."

Andrew Sullivan has a couple of awards he gives out every week named for various pundits and the annoying habits they perpetrate in the media.

But one of the awards isn't a put down to the person its named after. It's named after Liberal Blogger Matthew Yglesias, and it's for writers, politicians, columnists or pundits who actually criticize their own side, make enemies among political allies, and generally risk something for the sake of saying what they believe.

So the following is an example from Yglesias himself showing just why the award is named after him. It's a piece on Markos Moulitsas’ new book: American Taliban: How War, Sex, Sin, and Power Bind Jihadists and the Radical Right.

All I can say is wow, and well done, Matthew:

I previously expressed hope that Markos Moulitsas’ American Taliban: How War, Sex, Sin, and Power Bind Jihadists and the Radical Right would be better than the publicity material suggested. Jamelle Bouie read it for The American Prospect and reports back that it isn’t. Kevin Drum, meanwhile, notes the contrast between this kind of scathing review on a very mainstream liberal magazine and the reception of Liberal Fascism on the right.

I tend to think that this is one of the areas where progressives aren’t just doing the right thing, but have a smarter tactical approach to politics. There are scenarios in which tagging your political opponents with smears can be effective, but I don’t see any evidence that the particular apocalyptic “my enemies are totalitarian madmen” strain of Birch/Beck/Goldberg conservatism has helped anyone win any elections. This should be differentiated from the occasional lapse into rhetorical excess that everyone does now and again. I’m talking specifically about the kind of sustained effort to seriously persuade people that Elana Kagan favors sharia or Dwight Eisenhower is a Communist that you see among loons of all stripes but that seems to be granted more respectability on the right.

This stuff doesn’t win votes anyone because, after all, it’s a form of preaching to the choir. Which is fine—the choir needs some sermons. But there’s no real upside in lying to the choir. Political movements need to adapt to the actual situation, and that means having an accurate understanding of your foes. You need to see them as they actually are so that you know the right way to respond. Either underestimating or overestimating their level of viciousness and evil can lead to serious miscalculations. Which is just to say that getting this stuff right is more important than coming up with funny put-downs.

I almost want to call this the Fort McHenry Manifesto. Thank you again, sir.

We cover the Horse-race, but only if the Fox-approved Horse is winning!

What else is new?  Courtesy Jonathan Singer:

It's interesting. The media hyperventilates over any Gallup polling that finds the Democrats in despair. But when Gallup finds Barack Obama's approval rating jumping a net 12 percentage points in two and a half weeks, with more approving than disapproving for two straight days -- the first time that has been the case since mid-July -- all we hear is... crickets. Interesting.

This is more of a media story than a what's-Obama-done-for-us-lately story. The President had a good week. The Iraq Speech obviously went over way better than the Pundit class would have you believe.

I understand Horse-race thinking when it comes to covering Political stories, but only covering the Horse-race if a certain horse is winning??

Yes, there's been an explosion. But...

Yes, there has been yet another Oil Rig Explosion off the coast of Louisiana, but even if the worst happens (and there are early indications that it has), this will be a lot easier to fix than the Deepwater Horizon leak:

First, this was not a deep water well. It was drilling in the Gulf in waters reported as being 340-feet deep or 450-feet deep, depending on who's doing the reporting. That's shallow compared to the mile-deep water BP's Deepwater Horizon was drilling in when it went down. So the moratorium doesn't apply.

Second, this was a production platform, not a drilling platform, according to the initial reports. There's been some conflict in the reports about whether it was actively producing at the time of the explosion, but regardless it's not an exploration platform. The moratorium applies to drilling in the deep waters of the Gulf. Production in the deep waters of the Gulf has been ongoing ever since the BP disaster.

Two points of clarification to keep in mind as this story unfolds.

More workers at small businesses will get Health Care under that no-good Law which MUST be repealed...

From Jonathan Cohn, and the Los Angeles Times:

An economist and two health policy researchers at the nonprofit Rand Corp. conducted a simulation to predict what is likely to happen once employers are able to offer coverage through these exchanges. Overall, they estimate that the proportion of U.S. workers who will have access to health insurance through their jobs will jump from 84.6% to 94.6%. That works out to 13.6 million additional workers having the option to buy affordable health plans.

Most of that bump is likely to come from smaller businesses with 50 or fewer employees. Today, only 60.4% of these employees can get health insurance through their jobs. Once the exchanges are functioning, the Rand researchers forecast that 85.9% of small business employees will have the option of buying health plans at work--an increase of 10.5 million workers.

Part of the reason for that growth is that the policies that will be offered through the exchanges will be less expensive, the researchers said. Small companies will be able to band together to pool their risk, which will give them more leverage to bargain with insurance companies. It also means their premiums should be more stable from year to year.

Yes Republicans, please stop all this nasty, nasty growth and stabilization.

Why Joe Klein's idea isn't going to work.

I like Joe Klein, but his latest column edges toward the nonsensical.  Our Democracy isn't breaking down because of the process or arcane Senate rules.  It's breaking down because one group of people (Conservatives), believe that the other group (Liberals/Progressives) have no right to govern once they've been voted into power.  

When one side is saying that the other doesn't have a fundamental right to govern, Mr. Klein's idea's become meaningless.

Maybe it will be Elizabeth Warren after all...

Remember, not so long ago, when I wrote this?:

I think she's the best choice. I would prefer it be her, though I have no idea of her capacities as an Administrator (a suitable No. 2 can be hired for that). With Christina Romer leaving the Council of Economic Advisers, there's a serious girl shortage on the Obama Econ team, and Prof. Warren would fill in that role nicely (or at the Fed).

Either way, Warren not getting this job is not the end of the freaking world. (Plus, she may want to go back to Harvard. Anyone consider that??)

Well...

It looks like she ain't goin' back to Harvard.

This from Ezra Klein:

Elizabeth Warren is the frontrunner to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She's also, however, a professor at Harvard Law School, which isn't very compatible with taking a full-time job in Washington. Something's going to have to give. And if this e-mail Brady Dennis obtained is any indication, it's not Warren's political ambitions:

When fall classes began Wednesday at Harvard Law School, Elizabeth Warren was scheduled to be teaching contract law to first-year students. But something happened on the way to the chalkboard.

"I'm writing to let you know that Professor Jerry Frug will be teaching your Contracts class this term instead of Professor Elizabeth Warren," law school dean Martha Minow wrote to students on Tuesday, according to an e-mail obtained by The Washington Post. "Professor Warren regrets that she will not be able to teach you this fall and we regret the last minute change."

Last-minute change?

I'd also note that as the election outlook grows grimmer for the Democrats, the White House seems to be picking a new fight on jobs. I wouldn't be shocked if they decided to pick one on consumer protections, as well.

Fingers crossed.

Remember what I said about Tim Pawlenty?

Never mind:

Although Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) on Tuesday signed an executive order aimed at keeping the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act out of the state, he has also approved a budget that encourages state agencies to apply for grants funded by that very same health care law.

Pawlenty's executive order explicitly states, "All executive branch departments and agencies are directed that no application shall be submitted to the federal government in connection with requests for grant funding for programs and demonstration projects deriving from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("PPACA" or "the Act") (Pub.L. 111-148) unless otherwise required by law, or approved by the office of the Governor."

But in Minnesota's Special Session Budget, signed by Pawlenty on May 21, the state health commissioner is directed to apply for grants from this exact law:

Do as I say, not as I said to get a couple of headlines a couple days ago in the interests of my faltering Presidential ambitions.

And yes, I know I just ripped Huffington Post and quoted something from Huffington Post in the space of two postings. I am just Mr. Consistency!

Huffington Post: Making as little sense as usual.

It's a blaring headline on the Huffington Post right now:

DEMS UNLIKELY TO REPEAL BUSH TAX CUTS

The link leads to a story in McClatchy that says:

Democrats unlikely to repeal tax cuts for the rich

Democrats in Congress are poised to play a leading role this month in thwarting their party's effort to raise income tax rates on the wealthy.

Tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 expire at the end of this year. President Barack Obama and Democratic congressional leaders have been eager to extend the breaks for individuals who earn less than $200,000 annually and joint filers who make less than $250,000. Those who earn more would pay higher, pre-2001 rates starting next year.

However, a small but growing number of moderate Democrats are balking at boosting taxes on the rich. Many face electorates that recoil at the mention of any tax increase. Some represent areas that are loaded with wealthier taxpayers. Further, some incumbent senators who don't face voters this fall are reluctant to increase taxes on anyone while the economy remains sluggish.

Without their support, the push to raise rates on the rich probably will fail.

I respect McClatchy...and despite the fact I'm a Liberal, I can't stand Huffington Post...but there is a huge problem with the story, as far as I see it.

One, the Bush Tax Rates are set to expire at the end of the year. No further legislation is needed to raise the rates back to Bill Clinton-era levels. In fact, no further action is needed to raise the rates back to Bill Clinton-era levels.

(Once again, it's all about the clicks.)

So what are we talking about here??

Fine, was a movement afoot by...well, fiscally responsible Democrats to enact legislation to raise taxes on the rich, and a few Democrats have been stoopid enough to champion the idea of keeping our Nation's wealthiest citizens taxes low, low, low.

And Evan Bayh just proved to me what a crappy Vice-President he would have been. Don't let the door hit you on the way out, you rich bastard!

It is quite possible that Washington stalemate will produce the result fiscally responsible Liberals want, no bill to extend the Bush Tax Cuts. (Do you really think there's 60 votes for this crap? I'm betting 53-55 tops.)

Let's say they do get the tax cuts extended. Who exactly is going to sign them?

The way he was talking last night, I don't think it's going to be Barack Obama.

Again, let me repeat what he said:

Throughout our history, America has been willing to bear the burden of promoting liberty and human dignity overseas, understanding its links to our own liberty and security. But we have also understood that our nation’s strength and influence abroad must be firmly anchored in our prosperity at home. And the bedrock of that prosperity must be a growing middle class.

Unfortunately, over the last decade, we’ve not done what’s necessary to shore up the foundations of our own prosperity. We spent a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas. This, in turn, has short-changed investments in our own people, and contributed to record deficits. For too long, we have put off tough decisions on everything from our manufacturing base to our energy policy to education reform. As a result, too many middle-class families find themselves working harder for less, while our nation’s long-term competitiveness is put at risk.

And so at this moment, as we wind down the war in Iraq, we must tackle those challenges at home with as much energy, and grit, and sense of common purpose as our men and women in uniform who have served abroad. They have met every test that they faced. Now, it’s our turn. Now, it’s our responsibility to honor them by coming together, all of us, and working to secure the dream that so many generations have fought for -- the dream that a better life awaits anyone who is willing to work for it and reach for it.

Our most urgent task is to restore our economy, and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work. To strengthen our middle class, we must give all our children the education they deserve, and all our workers the skills that they need to compete in a global economy. We must jumpstart industries that create jobs, and end our dependence on foreign oil. We must unleash the innovation that allows new products to roll off our assembly lines, and nurture the ideas that spring from our entrepreneurs. This will be difficult. But in the days to come, it must be our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as President.

Translation: Okay, y'all have made everything I've done in the last two years about the deficit (even when I've worked to trim the deficit), so put your money where your mouth is. I'm about to give you what you say you want, a lower deficit. Now are you willing to stop whoring for your Corporate Masters to get this done, or is what you're selling nothing but a mountain of bullshit?

I'm betting mountain.

Ethics Investigations! They're not just for Democrats anymore!

Welcome John Campbell (R-CA) and Tom Price (R-GA) to the circle of the morally circumspect!

Tom Price was an Anti-Stimulus liar of the first order.  And John Campbell looks like Louie Golmert, only with a full head of hair.  Maybe it's worth losing Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters to get these two.